The following is a response to Paul Grisanti’s letter to the editor in the Oct. 2 edition, “Unanswered Questions.” Contrary to the title, all of the “questions” have been answered, and, frankly, all of the points he makes are not questions, but veiled accusations. I’m excited for the opportunity to answer them again and spread the word.
1. Grisanti claims R is not consistent with “Conditional Use Permits (CUP):”
This is just false. All centers in the Civic Center must still obtain a CUP for all new chain store locations.
2. Grisanti claims R allows more chain stores:
The City Attorney’s analysis couldn’t be any further from “impartial.” It makes impossible assumptions about chain stores that would be grandfathered in. As a paid contractor to the city, she has definitely come through the way developers hoped.
3. Grisanti claims R doesn’t protect small businesses:
The chain store provision would limit chain stores in shopping centers, allowing room for smaller businesses to move in affordably. The vote on large commercial developments would give us a voice to reject big box stores that hurt small retailers.
4. With regard to a debate: Rob is excited to debate the man who is funding the “no” on R side, Steve Soboroff. We are hoping for the week of Oct. 20.
5. Grisanti questions the purpose and function of R:
Measure R was prepared by a team of local residents concerned about Malibu and experts who understand public policy. It gives us a vote on all new, commercial developments over 20,000 sq. ft. It places a stronger limit on chain stores than current city law.
6. Grisanti questions the legality:
Measure R is legal because it is based on sound laws enacted by other cities. I am appalled that developers are threatening to sue the city if they do not get their way. It’s bordering on blackmail, and voters should not let these tactics intimidate them from seizing what could be our last opportunity to preserve Malibu.
Do not hesitate to email info@yourmalibu.com if you have questions about Measure R.
Michele Reiner